Cables Show US Seeks Assange 488
prakslash writes "The Sydney Morning Herald reports that diplomatic cables they obtained show the U.S. investigation into possible criminal conduct by Julian Assange has been ongoing for more than a year, despite denials by the U.S. State Department and the Australian Foreign Minister. Further, the Australian diplomats expect that the U.S. will seek to extradite Assange to the U.S. on charges including espionage and conspiracy relating to the release of classified information by WikiLeaks."
Medal of Honor (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's demand that Assange be issued the Congressional Medal of Honor and go after some of the lying scum that he helped expose.
This, despite precedents protecting new reporting (Score:5, Insightful)
It has been shown time and time again, journalism is exempted from these kind of things. They are the recipients of information, not the ones giving out secrets.
Perhaps 20 years ago, people might have drawn a distinction between publishing on a computer network and publishing on paper, but today, those distinctions are muddy and in transition. (Before long, the ONLY way to keep publications secret will be to write them down and share them secretly.)
We have a nation of law enforcers who are not enforcing the law... they are enforcing the will of the leadership which is NOT the same thing. I think law enforcement needs to go back to enforcing the law and to remain WITHIN the law when doing so.
Previous Charges (Score:5, Insightful)
It's becoming more and more evident by the day that the so-called "charges" that put him on the run in the first place are bullshit. This is about the US capturing Assange any way possible.
This makes the US look worse (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Previous Charges (Score:5, Insightful)
if the *charge* is about sex and it had nothing to do with a US person or even on US soil, what the HELL is the US's interest in this?
again, I say, this does not pass the smell test.
its all about saving face and making an example, to deter others from exposing dirty laundry.
100% that's all this is about.
and that's why it should not be allowed, for the US to have him.
and don't get me wrong, I don't care that much about this particular guy. I don't know that much about him (and neither do you, really). but the fact that the US is going after him for exposing their lies and deceipt - THAT is a rallying cause. its not about the man.
Sheesh (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd think the guy performed a punk concert in a church or something.
IN SOVIET AMERIKA (Score:5, Insightful)
PARTY FINDS YOU!
His crime? Journalism.
Re:This, despite precedents protecting new reporti (Score:5, Insightful)
That is a very valid point. I'm sure his lawyer, once they determine he is in Guantanamo Bay and labeled and an "enemy combatant" would want to use that in his defense. Just have to wait for a few years to meet their client, a few more years of trials just to see if a foreigner held in a prison off of US soil is eligible for a trial in the US Judicial system, etc.
Re:This makes the US look worse (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm afraid to comment on this story, post it to Facebook or to have my political views heard, for fear that it might prevent me from future government jobs, or possibly even from crossing the border.
The U.S. is lying. Sweden is lying. The U.K. is supporting them. This story makes it clear that "Western" governments can't be trusted to uphold their own founding values.
Re:IN SOVIET AMERIKA (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know about journalism. I'd say they're more like the extreme opposite of Fox News.
Re:Real Cables (Score:5, Insightful)
No indictment, no charges. No prosecution. Simple inquiry.
Yet Swedish authorities refuse multiple invitations to interview Assange for inquiry purposes in UK - including the past month, in the Ecuadorian embassy.
Instead, they push for extradition on contravention of International treaty law.
This is a chess game, being played on behalf of the Nation that incarcerates more of its own people than did Josef Stalin. The "Land of the Free".
Re:This, despite precedents protecting new reporti (Score:5, Insightful)
If you had read the article, you'd see that it is based on the Australians speculating. There's not much to quibble with the speculation (though the Slashdot title is misleading).
But you'll also note that they think an indictment would be based on conspiracy. And in that area, journalists can get nailed. If you are just receiving information, journalistic protections are fairly powerful. But if you work too closely with the informant, then conspiracy can raise its head.
Let me give two examples (hypothetical):
1) Manning sends Assange the files unsolicited. Assange would be protected.
2) Assange discusses with Manning how to hide his involvement in the disclosure. The discussion might lean towards conspiracy.
The first was just receiving information. The second crosses the line from just transferring information to other activities.
Re:IN SOVIET AMERIKA (Score:5, Insightful)
Yea, reporting excessive quantities of truth would be the opposite of fox news.
Re:Firing squad (Score:3, Insightful)
Who decides what is and isn't ethical?
Individuals.
Have we all ceded that responsibility to Mr. Assange and not our elected officials?
I wouldn't say our elected officials are ethical. But apparently as long as you agree with them, everything is a-okay.
Re:Real Cables (Score:5, Insightful)
lets be even more clear about this.
its not RAPE as most of the world defines it. its the peculiar definition that sweden uses, that he's ONLY accused of.
and I'm sorry, I'll say this bluntly, with the full spectrum of all the 'bad shit' that one person can do to another, sweden's definition of 'rape' is not quite enough to justify all the hooplah that's being made of this. sure, he was a heel, perhaps (we really don't know, though, its a lot of he-said-she-said, really). but I'm not sure this is international extradition worthy.
people do a HELL of a lot worse and get away with it.
(like, say, many of the people mentioned in the leaked cables... julian may have fucked two women, but people in the cables have fucked far more and far worse. THIS is the issue, not julian.)
Re:Firing squad (Score:5, Insightful)
Each and every god damned one of us has a responsibility to identify what is ethical and what is not and call it out as such.
Re:Swap for Cheney? (Score:0, Insightful)
Hold on to your hat there hippy, TFA says " investigation into possible criminal conduct by Julian Assange has been ongoing for more than a year".
That means your hero, maximum leader Obama, has got a hand in all this. Wow "does not compute, does not compute"! Democrats good, Republicans Bad!
Now go out there and start breaking windows of Starbucks like a good little radical. Gwan now, git!
Going to take an unpopular position. (Score:0, Insightful)
They *should* go after him. The rationalization this was journalism is a farce. Lets take the assumed analogue of the oppressed Syrian citizen tweeting against the regime or telling of some evil deed done by them. In each case the Assange defenders would say, "the individual is speaking out against the oppressive government getting the truth out for the world to see." In one case, the actor posts the information to express to the world the tyranny under which they live to maybe just someday restore some kind of liberty in their lives, at great risk to their own life. In the other case the actor posts the information with the express purpose of shaming and harming the government that authored them.
What would the position of the slashdotters be if Assange weren't leaking classified information, but, say, private information of EU citizens? I pick EU due to all the laws in place regarding personal information. Suppose he was posting gigs of credit card records indicating the purchase of a extra small Fleshlights. They would be outraged that their personal information was being shared with the world and now everyone knew they bought an extra small Fleshlight.
"But these are government documents, they are our governments and they work for US." (Us the first person objective plural, not the estados unidos) Sure, they do work for us. But governments have the right to their own secrets. Assange was knowingly distributing them with malice. I would hope and expect them to pursue charges.
Re:This, despite precedents protecting new reporti (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Assange discusses with Manning how to hide his involvement in the disclosure. The discussion might lean towards conspiracy.
Conspiracy to leak information that as a foreign national on foreign soil he had no legal obligation to keep secret.
Oh wait, I forgot US law applies across the entire planet, and probably Mars now.
Re:Swap for Cheney? (Score:4, Insightful)
While I'd love for them to stand trial; I'd never ever give up an innocent person whom will be subject to torture in exchange for a criminal.
Re:No speculation needed after this week. (Score:3, Insightful)
Look, the UK has TWO treaty obligations that are in direct conflict here:
1) Their treaty with the other member states of the EU agreeing to be bound by the EAW extradition framework;
2) Their diplomatic treaties with Ecuador;
Pretending that one "trumps" the other, or one is stronger than the other is stupid. The UK government decides which obligation serves its own interests better - other countries can lodge complaints, and make an argument at the UN or in the media... but what it boils down to is, the only way to "force" another nation into doing what you want if they decide they can't satisfy the terms of the treaty, is to declare war.
So, answer a few questions for me, if you would:
1) Why would the US need to go through Sweden to get Assange? If they filed an extradition request with the UK, what makes you think the UK wouldn't agree to it? Cursory review of previous extradition shows that the UK has extradited numerous people to the US to face charges, and the relationship between the two countries is fairly cordial. In addition, the UK seems eager to be rid of him, so I can't imagine they'd object TOO strongly if the US filed extradition charges, as well.
2) Why would Sweden agree to behave as a middleman, knowing full well that extraditing a suspect to a non-EU member state (say, the US) after they've been surrendered to Sweden by that EU member state *requires* the approval of the state originally surrendering the suspect to Sweden (i.e., the UK)? For Sweden to be involved, they would need to be prepared to violate all of their obligations under the EAW framework, for absolutely zero benefit - and the US would STILL need to get the UK's approval to do it legally - so why not just request extradition from the UK directly?
3) Do you really believe that diplomatic immunity was *intended* to be used in the way Ecuador is trying to use it, to shield an alleged criminal from prosecution? And would you be okay with that if, say, Mr. Assange got mugged, identified a suspect to the police, and then the suspect fled to the US embassy seeking asylum? Because if Ecuador can do it... why can't every other country use its diplomatic immunity in a disingenuous fashion, as well?
Re:IN SOVIET AMERIKA (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama is not my hero. He just happens to be slightly less of a villain than Romney.
Re:Firing squad (Score:5, Insightful)
If they have anything even remotely concrete to charge him with
There's no need - the President can send him to Gitmo for years without bringing charges, as a lesson to other journalists not to mess with the USG.
<WP:NDAA> [wikipedia.org]
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:IN SOVIET AMERIKA (Score:3, Insightful)
The Daily show has more viewers then the whole Fox news channel.
Re:No speculation needed after this week. (Score:4, Insightful)
You're Missing the Point (Score:5, Insightful)
You should care about the rights of Assange only for as long as you care about your own.
Re:Firing squad (Score:4, Insightful)
Sweden is arguably more of a "US lapdog" in some aspects for a number of reasons. First of all, the massive financial pressure on politicians from piratebay case that has been on for years from US side has inherently made Swedish authorities easier to pressure. Then there's the technological and military cooperation, where Swedish national pride of having its own fighter jet is completely dependent on US goodwill - US licenses a lot of tech needed to build Gripen.
There are several other impacts as well, such as the pressure that came from "war on terror" and massively negative view Bush took on countries that chose to keep on being neutral, which made Sweden cave on several policies badly, one of them extraordinary rendition. In many ways GB has been protected by its sheer size from these, as while Downing Street has generally been keep on pleasing US, GB as a country is still big enough to resist significant amounts of financial and political pressure. Sweden's capacity to do the same is unfortunately much smaller.
Finally there's a matter of Sweden's own internal problems with rising wave of extremist feminism, which in this case was cleverly exploited by US.
Re:Firing squad (Score:5, Insightful)
Julian Assange is not a traitor. The Rosenbergs were. You cannot be a declared an open citizen of another country and be a "traitor" to another. What he did was not even a crime, and the notion of extradition is dubious.
Re:Going to take an unpopular position. (Score:5, Insightful)
In one case, the actor posts the information to express to the world the tyranny under which they live to maybe just someday restore some kind of liberty in their lives, at great risk to their own life. In the other case the actor posts the information with the express purpose of shaming and harming the government that authored them.
Uh... both of those cases are valid for both Assange and the Syrian example. The Syrian is oppressed AND wants to shame/harm the tyrant. Same with Assange. You know, USA and corporations doing generally dickish moves on a global scale is a form of oppression. It's at a greater distance since it's their actions abroad, but they're still trying to impose their will on those that don't want it, and at the cost of others.
What would the position of the slashdotters be if Assange weren't leaking classified information, but, say, private information of EU citizens?
I think that's been done. Yeah, here we go:
In January 2011, Rudolf Elmer, a former Swiss banker, passed on data containing account details of 2,000 prominent people to Assange, who stated that the information will be vetted before being made publicly available at a later date.[168]
Soooo, while it's a violation of privacy, if it exposes dastardly people doing dastardly thing, then all the more power to him. Seriously, screw those bankers and tax dodgers. And specifically, all the more power to Rudolf Elmer, the guy who actually leaked this information. Wikileaks is just doing the dissemination and proofing. (and keeping the source a secret, but that ball has been dropped.) Also making sure that the data being leaked only punishes those who really deserve it. They're not in the business of giving out everyone's credit card numbers. Duh.
But if they did, sure, we'd be pissed. Well I would anyway. What can I say, I'd feel bad for those poor lonely Europeans. (But still, ew)
But governments have the right to their own secrets. Assange was knowingly distributing them with malice
Yes. And exposed some extremely bad activities and people in doing so. He trampled all over the privacy laws, which is a problem, to expose an even bigger problem.
I'm all for him being charged and punished for violating those privacy rights. As long as I could trust the people in power to not charge him with bullshit charges, indefinitely detain him, or kill him. Which, quite sadly, I cannot. There's rising amounts of proof that I can't trust those people not to be dicks. So with that in mind, I'm perfectly fine with Assange doing what he can to keep out of the grasp of those who would almost assuredly not give him a fair trial.
Meanwhile, I pretty damn pissed that my government is being this vile. I would prefer that they acknowledge their mistakes, thank him for bringing them to light, and make some serious efforts to weed out the corruption and vileness in the system.
Re:Real Cables (Score:3, Insightful)
He hasn't been charged with anything, and he doesn't become a criminal until after he is convicted.
I'm glad that your understanding of due process isn't how the civilized world works.
--Jeremy
Re:Firing squad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This, despite precedents protecting new reporti (Score:5, Insightful)
As for where the law applies, many laws apply outside territories.
Under what theory of jurisprudence is this valid? Why should Assange be subject to US law any more than I am subject to Thai (the Thai king is an ugly idiot!) or Saudi (Muhammad was a murdering pedofile) law?
Shouldn't I be under extradition to Thailand or Saudi Arabia right now? If not, why not, and why doesn't the same reason apply to Assange?
Re:This, despite precedents protecting new reporti (Score:5, Insightful)
Does that mean that North Korea can demand to have the head of the CIA extradited to stand trial for espionage against North Korea?
Re:This, despite precedents protecting new reporti (Score:5, Insightful)